T And T Garage wrote on 05/06/19 at 08:02:37:



When was it ever?  Yes,  I called him out!


Best regards,

Incorrect.  Also there was no abuse regarding Twitter, they did not abuse Woods, or Jones, or anyone.

Doing so for having opinions that differ from the lefty religion is Bullshit and you know it.

"How do you describe denying the use of a service?"

 An End User License Agreement, or a Terms of Service, or anything similar to that.

 You guys classify Twitter removing customers as abuse?

 Or only the customers you like?

 Again, they agreed to this.  Just as we agree on here.  Would you really call and file abuse charges on a moderator here if you were banned from this forum?

 What grounds would you have?

 What happened to the Capitalist concept of freedom to run your business and let the consumer decide if you succeed?  If a Millennial were calling this abuse they would be a snowflake.

"When that principle was in effect and
Certain People
Couldn't order a burger
You cried foul.
You're as bigoted as the racists of years gone by."

 I don't recall ever having an opinion on the matter.  What are you even talking about?

Eegore wrote on 05/06/19 at 19:09:06:



https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies#twitter-rules

Feel free to take a look....

Best regards,

"Feel free to take a look...."

 Maybe there is a misunderstanding.  I am very familiar with Twitter terms of use as I use it regularly with my business and employees, or "underlings" as they have been called.

 I see nothing that would hold up in court that would substantiate a claim of "abuse" by Twitter for banning any member.  Feel free to take a look and let me know where you see Twitter violating their Terms of Use in a fashion that creates an abusive environment for James Woods, or Alex Jones.

 Again" Pick the correct law.  Trying to make everything 1st Amendment, or "Abuse" will legally get you nowhere.

Eegore wrote on 05/06/19 at 19:09:06:

  Or only the customers you like?

What happened to the Coffee Shop, that would not serve a Police person ?

Is that liking one costumer, and not liking another ?
Is that not a prejudice or racist decision/attitude ?

What happened to that decision of that Coffee shop ?

Why is not any decision/resolve about that place, constantly on the News, like the issue with a Baker was ?

"Is that liking one costumer, and not liking another ?

Yes.

Is that not a prejudice or racist decision/attitude ?

 It is not racist, we have already had discussions defining this, you clearly can not, or refuse to separate race from prejudice by definition.

What happened to that decision of that Coffee shop ?

 They decided to no longer serve law enforcement.

Why is not any decision/resolve about that place, constantly on the News, like the issue with a Baker was ?

 We have already discussed this.  Media outlets do not allocate equal time to events.  They do not run exactly 15 minutes of sports with exactly 20 seconds allotted to every team in a league, and also do not allot 50 minutes of weather coverage with exactly 1 minute per state.  For instance with the coffee shop versus the baker, I look at the actual court documents.  The real event references and documentation is where I go, where instead you look at an internet article about a coffee shop.  It makes sense to me that a real court case would get more coverage than an internet article, but I do not own any news outlets nor research their content.

 Economically media outlets could not function profitably or with current news if they required equal coverage.

 The problem is people use the "news" for data instead of research centers with verifiable peer-reviewed information.  The information provided is privately owned internet sites that can pick and choose their coverage and people wonder why the coverage content is not accurate or is prejudiced in coverage, unless its a site they like.